Friday, April 26, 2013

As of 2013, constitutional Americans have witnessed an increase in
hostile posturing by the federal government. These hostile actions were
clearly outlined by the CMF Website Administrator in the article ‘The American Government continues to target Preppers’.
One of the most notable actions outlined in this article was the
purchase of 2,700 MRAP Light Armored Vehicles by the Department of
Homeland Security. A purchase warranted as unnecessary and irrational by
seasoned military and police personnel. This single purchase of MRAPs
is understandably unnerving for those in the survival community.

Its high-time Americans wake up and realize our nation is under a
continual threat of tyranny. Now let’s step off the soapbox and get
informed. When and if (when stressed more than if) the federal
government uses light-armored vehicles against Americans, we will need
to be fully informed prior to their use. You will need to know what an
MRAP is, its capabilities, and its weaknesses. This guide will assist
you and your survival group.

I remind everyone that with some 300,000,000 guns in America and about 11,000 homicides a year 0.004% of them are used in a murder annually. In other words 99.996% of the firearms owned are not used to murder someone in a given year.

=========================

The other night I got into a twitter-flamefest with Dylan Ratigan on, you guessed it, guns.

He
tweeted something about The Senate and "reasonable" gun control and I
went after him. He responded and the game was on. You can back through
my timeline (as Tickerguy) and have a look if you want.

The conversation quickly degenerated when he started with the "So you're for private ownership of nukes, right?" crap and "The Second Amendment was written in a time of muskets, so that's what it covers" nonsense.

I retorted with "So the First Amendment is about movable type, paper and ink -- hand-driven -- right?"

Ah, no answer.

Didn't
think I'd get one, by the way, so rather than keep hammering that I
instead pointed this out the following (and it took three tweets to do
it @ 140 characters each):

The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution (no government can give what it does not have)

2A recognizes the fundamental human right to self-defense, irrespective of the attacker's identity.

The Bill of Rights PROTECTS Rights, it does not GRANT them as government NEVER HAD THEM TO GRANT.

This is why we can't have a "reasonable" debate on this point with people on the other side of the debate.

Many of our brave men and women in uniform carry a motto that they will
not leave a man behind. Sadly, in many instances that happens and it’s
not because that is what those men want to happen. Such is the story of
Special Forces Green Beret Master Sgt. John Hartley Robertson, whose
helicopter was shot down over Laos in 1968 on a classified mission. He
was declared dead in that same year. A new movie by Emmy-winning
Edmonton Filmmaker Michael Jorgensen titled Unclaimed is Robertson’s story.

Robertson never forgot that he was a husband, a father and an
American soldier who was born in Alabama. However, he did forget
English and learned to speak only Vietnamese.

Robertson was captured by the Vietnamese and was accused of being a
CIA spy. As a result, he was tortured for a year. He was badly injured
and confused, but finally released and ended up marrying a Vietnamese
nurse that had taken care of him during his captivity. The two had
children and he assumed the name of her dead husband.

Jorgensen says that audiences will “lose their minds” and “come
unglued” when they see Unclaimed. “They don’t hold anything higher than
service to the country,” he said.

Ironically, Jorgensen said that there were roadblocks from the
military in making the film, especially in contacting Mr. Robertson’s
family. One high-0placed government source told him, “It’s not that the
Vietnamese won’t let him (Robertson) go; it’s that our government
doesn’t want him.”

Unclaimed follows the dramatic quest of Vietnam vet Tom
Faunce to prove that the man he was told about while on a 2008
humanitarian mission in Southeast Asia was indeed an Army “brother” who
had been listed as killed in action and subsequently forgotten.

Faunce, a soft-spoken man who has suffered crushing loss and turmoil
throughout his life, has devoted himself to helping the world’s most
desperate people. He was determined to make good on his vow to leave no
man behind after serving two years in a war that divided America and
made him feel like a pariah when he finally came home.

“Tom went to meet him (Robertson) and was very skeptical, grilled
this guy up and down trying to get him to break, to say, ‘Oh, no, I’m
just making it up.’ And he was adamant he was that guy,” said Jorgensen,
who was in Toronto to help host an invitation-only patrons’ screening
of Unclaimed at the Hot Docs Bloor Cinema two weeks ago and sat down for an exclusive interview with the Star.

Robertson’s story seems unbelievable. And Jorgensen was equally
skeptical when Faunce contacted him in 2012 about making a doc in the
hope it would add muscle to his quest to reunite Robertson with his
American family.

The film is complete with a touching meeting of Robertson and a
soldier he had trained in 1960 and also a very moving scene when he is
reunited with his only surviving sibling, 80 year old Jean
Robertson-Holly, who had no idea that her brother could even be alive.

According to Jorgensen, “Jean says … ‘There’s no question. I was
certain it was him in the video, but when I held his head in my hands
and looked in his eyes, there was no question that was my brother.”
Both the soldier and the sister claimed there was no need of
verifying fingerprints and DNA because they knew him at first sight.
However, attempts were made to have DNA testing with his American wife
and two children, but though they had previously agreed, they abruptly
declined.

“Somebody suggested to me maybe that’s (because) the daughters don’t
want to know if it’s him. It’s kind of like, that was an ugly war. It
was a long time ago. We just want it to go away,” says Jorgensen. “I
don’t know. What would compel you not to want to know if this person is
your biological father?”

Hugh Tran, a Vietnam-born Edmonton senior police constable, was with
Jorgensen to act as a translator between him and Robertson. He could
find no evidence of an American accent at all. “To tell you the truth,
after I interviewed him the first time, I was 90 percent sure he is
MIA,” said Trans. “I still didn’t believe . . . until I saw the family
reunion.”

Though Robertson appears to forget his birthday and even the names of
his American children, Jorgensen says that there are moments that were
not in the film where his memory is quite sharp.

“These memories pop
out,” says Jorgensen. “I’ll give you an example that’s not in the movie.
The minute he (Robertson) walks in that room in Edmonton, he knows it’s
Jean. He says to Henry, her husband, ‘Oh, I remember, you worked in the
drugstore.’” Jean’s husband had been a pharmacist for 50 years.

Both Jean and her husband want answers as to why he was left in
Vietnam. They were both involved in a car crash within days of their
reunion with Robertson.

Mr. Robertson is back in Vietnam now, having fulfilled a long awaited
wish to see his American family one more time before he dies.

When I think of men like John Kerry being promoted to Secretary of
State after the treasonous actions that he engaged in and the
politicizing of his “service” in Vietnam in his presidential bid and I
compare him to someone like Mr. Robertson, I genuinely am disgusted with
how such a man could ever be seen as anything but a coward. Perhaps if
enough people were to flood the U.S. State Department on behalf of
Robertson’s sister and brother-in-law, the pressure might be enough to
get some answers for this family that were separated by nearly a half a
century.

"Immigration reform could be a bonanza for Democrats [and] cripple
Republican prospects in many states they now win easily." — Politico,
April 22, 2013

In 1984, California was sufficiently conservative so that it cast its
electoral votes for President Ronald Reagan. It was not fiercely
pro-gun, but, then again, it wasn't New York.

But, in 1986, Reagan signed an immigration amnesty bill, called
Simpson-Mazzoli. The bill was small compared to the current amnesty
bill. Three million illegals benefited.

But that was enough to change California from a sometimes "swing
state" to a state almost wholly controlled by Leftists. Within 20
years — and continuing to this day — California couldn't pass enough gun
bans, gun registration, ammunition limits, and ammunition registration.

So it is with some concern that Chuck Schumer’s amnesty bill (S. 744)
which is currently on the table would cover 11,000,000 to 20,000,000
illegal aliens — four to seven times the size of the Simpson-Mazzoli
bill.

We predict that, if the bill is passed, by 2035, the American
electorate will have changed so fundamentally that California-style gun
control could become a very real possibility in this country!
We know you're tired. We have just fought a hard-fought battle over explicit gun control in the Senate — a battle which we won.

But it does strike us as interesting that the same gun control
crazies who pushed gun control want to slam immigration amnesty through
the Senate quickly so they can redirect their fire against us again.

Who are the chief architects of forging a more anti-gun electorate?
Well, the chief sponsor of S. 744 is Chuck Schumer, and he is joined by
other Second Amendment haters such as Dick Durbin (D-IL), Bob Menendez
(D-NJ) and compromiser John McCain (R-AZ).

Over the next week or so, we'll let you in on some of the anti-gun
specifics of Schumer's "amnesty bill," as it’s correctly dubbed. But for
starters, the bill would push us towards a biometric ID card, which is
something that GOA has opposed for years — given that a de facto
National ID poses a huge threat to gun owners’ privacy.

But then there’s the fact that Schumer’s “amnesty bill” requires the
government to give its okay — in a Brady Gun Check-type
procedure — before you could get a private job in America (section
3(c)(2)(A)(iii)). Does anyone not see why this might be a problem?

We've just gone through excruciating pain to stop the expansion of
Brady Checks for guns. Now we turn around and the same parties who were
pushing that are now pushing Brady Checks for private jobs.

It’s ironic that those pushing for background checks are adamantly
against ID’s for voting because that would disenfranchise the elderly,
the poor, and minorities. Hmm, so they do understand that background
checks — as a prior restraint — are a fundamentally flawed concept?

But this is where the real fun starts. You feed the potential
employee’s info into a government database and, according to Senator
Durbin, "up pops a picture." And, says Durbin, "if that picture doesn't
match [the one on your ID], you may not be employed."

The Brady Check deals with a list of names which is in the millions.
It deals only with things like names and social security numbers, not
pictures. Yet it gives “false negatives” 8% of the time. And if you’re
one of those 8% who are illegally denied a gun, the FBI’s response, more
often than not, is “So sue us.” If this weren’t bad enough, the system
breaks down for days at a time — normally the times when the most people
need it.

Do we really want to expand this flawed concept to other areas of our lives?

If this weren't bad enough, we know that, once the government has to
give its approval before you can do something, it’s an almost iron-clad
guarantee that it will exercise that power in a political manner. Under
the Brady Check system, 165,000 law-abiding honorable veterans have lost
their gun rights, not because they have done anything wrong, but
because they sought counseling from the VA on the basis of a traumatic
experience in the military.

Watching Schumer explain on the Senate floor why those veterans
should lose their constitutional rights without any court order — while
he vigilantly defends due process for foreign terrorists — is like
watching a dung beetle drag its “prey” back to its lair.

So we know 165,000 non-politically correct veterans lost their gun
rights under Brady Checks. Who will become politically incorrect
unemployable non-persons under Brady Checks for Jobs?

Now, one would think that the fact that one million people in Boston
were put under house arrest last week because our current immigration
system allowed two asylum-seekers from terrorist-filled Chechnya to
become legal residents and, in one case, a citizen of our country, will
put the skids on the "inevitability" of Schumer’s amnesty bill. After
all, gun control was "inevitable" too.

But the bottom line is this: Just as we saw the gun ramifications of
ObamaCare, we will also see the problems with a bill that alters the
electorate in such a way that the Second Amendment will cease to exist.
In doing so, we will need to make sure that we don’t have most of our
guns registered or confiscated in 2035 because short-sighted politicians
listened to MSNBC and turned our country blue.

Republican outrage is rising over the decision to read teenage Boston
bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev his Miranda rights just as he was
beginning to open up about the blast that killed three and injured about
270 people.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said it was “ridiculous” that a
judge stopped the questioning while the 19-year-old was talking to FBI
agents.

And House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers called the decision to intervene a “God-awful policy.”

Lawmakers are demanding to know why Tsarnaev, who has confessed to being
involved in the planting of two bombs near the Boston Marathon finish
line, was read his Miranda rights in the middle of his interrogation.

“That’s just mind-boggling,” Giuliani said in an interview with Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren.

“This guy is kind of telling you about how he’s coming to New York and
do a bombing, a judge walks in and we cut off the questioning?” Giuliani
said. “What are we, crazy?

Investigators in white hazmat suits are searching a landfill for a
laptop tied to the accused Boston Marathon bombers, a potential lead
that emerged as a result of interviews with two men from Kazakhstan who
knew the terror suspects, law enforcement sources told ABC News.

Immigration officers arrested the two men, Dias Kadyrbayev, 19, and
Azamat Tazhayakov, 20, on Saturday on suspicion that they had violated
the terms of their student visas because they were no longer attending
classes. They are being detained on the administrative charges at the
Suffolk County (Mass.) House of Corrections.

The men lived in an apartment near the campus of University of
Massachusetts Dartmouth, where accused bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, had
been enrolled as a student. Both Tsarnaev brothers were believed to
have visited the New Bedford apartment of Kadyrbayev and Tazhayakov
after the bombing, according to three law enforcement sources, who spoke
on the condition they not be named because they were discussing an
ongoing investigation. The police sources told ABC News they traced
calls and Russian language text messages from one of the bombing
suspect's cell phone to the Kazakhstani men.

A nonprofit group in Houston, TX known for helping single mothers
has begun an ambitious new effort to help an entire neighborhood, and
ultimately, the entire nation. This nonprofit stands apart from most
others because of how it is trying to help. Namely, they arm single
mothers and other vulnerable groups in society. They are the Armed Citizen Project.

The group formed earlier this year and raised funds to purchase and
provide firearms, specifically shotguns, along with legal, safety, and
tactical training, to single mothers and single women across the city of
Houston. The group’s founder and executive director, Kyle Coplen, says
they have already helped about 15 women to better protect themselves and
their children. Coplen is a faculty member at Rice University and
directs their aquatics program.

The Armed Citizen Project is now expanding, according to Coplen. “We
are now stepping up our efforts to train and arm an entire neighborhood.
We’ve sent mailers out to the targeted area and people began contacting
us."

The Department of Homeland Security’s chief procurement officer
testified at a House hearing Thursday that the agency’s bullet
stockpile is almost 250 million, and the procurement of ammunition has
“remained constant” in relation to the number of employees that carry
and use firearms.

“As of April 15, 2013, this amounted to DHS having approximately 246,451,611 rounds in inventory,” Nick Nayak said
in prepared remarks to the House Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign
Operations and Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation, and
Regulatory Affairs hearing.

“On average, over the last three fiscal years, DHS procured
approximately 120 million rounds of ammunition per year of all calibers
and types and fired approximately the same number of rounds per year,
almost exclusively for training purposes,” he said.

GOP Bill Seeks to Cut Back Government Ammo Purchases

Senate and House Republicans are set to introduce a joint bill Friday
that would significantly limit the amount of ammunition that federal
agencies are permitted to purchase and stockpile over the next six
months.

The bill, authored by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R., Okla.) and Rep. Frank
Lucas (R., Okla.), comes as numerous lawmakers across Capitol Hill have
expressed concern that certain federal agencies, such as the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS), are stockpiling high quantities of
ammunition.

DHS, for instance, has placed two-years worth of ammunition, or nearly 247 million rounds, in its inventory.

Inhofe said these agencies must provide greater “transparency and
accountability” over its ammo stockpiles so that the public can learn
about its precise use.

“President Obama has been adamant about curbing law-abiding
Americans’ access and opportunities to exercise their Second Amendment
rights,” Inhofe said in a statement provided to the Washington Free Beacon.
“One way the Obama administration is able to do this is by limiting
what’s available in the market with federal agencies purchasing
unnecessary stockpiles of ammunition.”

Did CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell mislead lawmakers when he told
senators in a briefing that references to terrorism and al-Qaida were
removed from the White House’s Benghazi talking points in order to
“prevent compromising an ongoing criminal investigation?”

The claim of scrubbing terrorism from White House talking points for
security reasons was also made to the news media by other officials
within the CIA and by the office of the Director for National
Intelligence.

But those claims are now contradicted by a 46-page House Republican report probing the Benghazi attacks.
In perhaps one of the most damning but until now unreported sections
of the report, lawmakers who penned the investigation wrote they were
given access to classified emails and other communications that prove
the talking points were not edited to protect classified information but
instead to protect the State Department’s reputation.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, in remarks that largely have escaped notice, has claimed that
“creating a mechanism for [illegal aliens] to earn citizenship and move
out of the shadows… is a matter of civil and human rights.”

Holder also said that the federal government will work hard “to safeguard the rights of language minorities.”

Holder made these remarks in an April 24 speech to the Mexican
American Legal Defense and Educational Fund Awards Gala. MALDEF’s
notable activity includes suing Sheriff Joe Arpaio and opposing
Arizona’s immigration law.

Holder said, “[I]t is long past time to reform our immigration system
in a way that is fair; that guarantees that all are playing by the same
rules…”

However, one of the primary criticisms of amnesty is that it does not
treat all immigrants according to the same rules. Instead, according to
critics, amnesty would reward illegal aliens by allowing them to bypass
established procedures required for legal entry.

We are hearing from multiple sources that the U.S. Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee is gearing up to hold hearings on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The plan is to hold the hearings sometime next month.

The Senate needs to hear from you immediately that this already
defeated UN treaty must not be ratified by the U.S. Senate. The
United States Senate must not surrender our domestic sovereignty and the
care of children with disabilities to unelected, unaccountable UN
bureaucrats. Parents know best how to care for their children
with disabilities. U.S. law is the gold standard for ensuring that
people with disabilities are protected and able to participate in all
areas of U.S. society.

The U.S. Senate will be in recess next week, which means that
your senators are back in your state meeting with constituents. Please
do three things:

Call and email your two U.S. senators and urge them to oppose the UN CRPD. The Capitol Hill Switchboard is 202-224-3121, and you can use this link to email your senators.

Find out if there is a constituent meeting in your area, or see if you can visit your U.S. senators while they are on recess. You can visit our States Page, click on your state, and then click on your senators to find their personal webpage.

Please forward this email to your friends and family,
and educate them about the dangers that this UN treaty poses to
parental rights, homeschool freedom, and our nation’s sovereignty.

Your message to your senators can be as simple as the following:

“I urge you
to oppose the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
This treaty surrenders U.S. sovereignty to unelected UN bureaucrats and
will threaten parental care of children with disabilities. Our nation
already has laws to protect Americans with disabilities. This treaty is
unnecessary and will hurt families by giving bureaucrats the power to
decide what is in the best interests of a child with disabilities, not
the child’s parents.”

Imagine a country that has a corrupt authoritarian government. In that
country no one knows about checks and balances or an independent court
system.
Private property is not recognized in that country either. Neither can
one buy or sell land. And businesses are reluctant to bring investments
into this
country. Those who have jobs usually work for the public sector. Those
who don’t have jobs subsist on entitlements that provide basic food. At
the
same time, this country sports a free health care system and free access
to education. Can you guess what country it is? It could be the former
Soviet
Union, Cuba, or any other socialist country of the past.

Yet, I want to assure you that such a country exists right here in the United States. And its name is Indian Country.

With food stamp spending in the United States skyrocketing since the
beginning of the recession, the Department of Agriculture is paying to
promote food stamp usage to illegal immigrants for the sake of their
American children, according to documents obtained by a government
watchdog.

“The promotion of the food stamp program, now known as “SNAP” (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), includes a Spanish-language flyer provided to the Mexican Embassy by the USDA
with a statement advising Mexicans in the U.S. that they do not need to
declare their immigration status in order to receive financial
assistance,” Judicial Watch announced today.

I recently received an email from an older Patriot concerned
about his role in the III% movement. His email along with my response
is posted below.

I am 59 years old. I am a Vietnam Era Air Force veteran
who has never seen combat or fired a weapon at a human being. I am an
Oath Keeper, in my own mind at least. In my younger days I was an
above-average athlete. I was given my first firearm by my WWII combat
veteran father at age 12.

In the past few years I have been lurking the internet for III-per
information and contacts. I fancy myself a III-per but the embarrassing
fact is that I have no combat experience, and as I age I begin to think I
would be more of a hindrance to an active III-per unit than a asset. I
am still fairly healthy and strong. All my parts work. I can do about a
12 minute mile.

I have made substantial investments in AR platforms in 7.62 and 5.56
with ACOG optics. I also have built a Remington 700 (.308) long-range
rifle with HorusVision optics and I am very accurate at up to 300 yards.
I am sure I can add to that effective range. I have
better-than-avaerage woodcraft skills. No plate carriers or LBE.

I have acquired basic handgun training and I am proficient but certainly no expert.
I have not been trained in the tactics of any kind.

Am I kidding myself to think that I could actually serve in an active III-per unit if TSHTF?

Would you have someone like me in a unit you were leading, or tell me to beat it?

I am not asking to be coddled. I am asking what it would be like to
be you, if you had to choose between allowing an old man into a unit
simply because he had gear and could shoot fairly well, but would surely
slow down a unit of 20-year olds.

Thank you for your honest comments if you have the time.
- Aging Patriot

I understand your concern that you aren’t combat experienced but
neither were most of the original III%. And neither are most of the
III% community today. As a very unscientific estimate of the US
population, it’s something like 1% in the military; of which maybe 50%
have been deployed to an actual combat zone (I don’t know the exact
percentage); and perhaps 10% of that fraction have trigger time. Very,
very few people. There are active militias out there that have no
combat experience among their ranks. There are plenty of Americans like
you; but combat experience isn’t a prerequisite to defend the Liberty
and security of the Republic.

The Boston Marathon bombing suspects made an impromptu decision to drive
to New York City and detonate their remaining explosives in Times
Square, New York City officials said on Thursday.

“Last night, we were informed by the FBI that the surviving attacker
revealed that New York City was next on their list of targets,” Mayor
Michael Bloomberg said at an afternoon news conference.

Bloomberg was referring to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, who was captured on
Friday in suburban Watertown, Mass., after an intense manhunt by
authorities. His brother, Tamerlan, 26, was killed in a fierce overnight
shootout with police earlier on Friday.

“He told the FBI apparently that he and his brother intended to drive to
New York and detonate additional explosives in Times Square,” Bloomberg
added. “They had built these additional explosives — and we know that
they had the capacity to carry out the attacks.”

New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said the suspects had a
pressure cooker bomb like the two used in the Boston blasts and five
pipe bombs that they wanted to set off.

They said Dzhokhar Tsarnaev told Boston investigators from his hospital
bed that he and his brother had discussed going to New York to detonate
their remaining explosives. They said they decided it spontaneously.

“In the car, they made a decision to go to New York with the remaining explosives to detonate in Times Square,” Kelly said.

The brothers’ plan “fell apart,” Kelly said, when they realized that the
Mercedes-Benz SUV they had stolen — after fatally shooting MIT security
officer Sean Collier — had run out of gas.

The SUV’s owner, who had been driving with the suspects inside, escaped
after the suspects forced him to stop at a gas station, Kelly said.

I have no personal experience in the business of false flag terrorism,
but I imagine that engineering a successfully staged terror attack to be
blamed on innocent or semi-innocent parties with the goal of
psychologically manipulating a population requires that one also be an
accomplished storyteller. It demands an avid imagination and an
organized sense of foresight. And, most of all, it requires a
consistency of narrative. Without consistency, the audience’s ability
to suspend its disbelief is damaged, and they become disconnected from
the fantasy being portrayed.

If I were the “writer” behind the “story” of the Boston Marathon Bombing, I would consider my efforts an abject failure.

The narrative of the event has changed multiple times in only a few
days, following a hailstorm of conflicting observations from the
government and the establishment-run media. The “villain” of the
original plotline was clearly meant to be “rightwing extremism” as
numerous mainstream talking heads, led by federal agency inferences,
began repeating the “homegrown right wing terrorist” meme everywhere.
This meme was partly abandoned after the alternative media and the
Liberty Movement began its own investigation, revealing a large federal
presence on the scene, including military Civil Support Teams often tied
to the DHS and NORTHCOM, as well as the witnesses who observed what
on-scene officials called “training exercises” during the marathon. I
have no doubt that these citizen investigations forced the establishment
to change the direction of their crime tale, and use Plan B patsies
instead. This, however, complicated the momentum of the fiction, and
created even more questions.

The Chechen brothers now implicated in the attack
have been revealed as long time FBI contacts. This is a bit awkward for
the FBI considering they asked the American public to help them
“identify the suspects in on-scene photos” while they failed to mention
that they knew EXACTLY who the two young men were already (this is what
we might call a contrived story arch). Today, the older brother,
Tamerlan Tsarnaev, is conveniently dead. The younger brother, Dzhokhar
Tsarnaev, had his throat conveniently shot out. The feds are now
supplying the media with “written confessions” from Dzhokhar to which
there is no proof of legitimacy. For all we know the boy hasn’t written
a word.

Remembrance

Execution of Colonel Ho Ngoc CanLast words: "If I won the war, I would not condemn you as you have condemned me.I would not humiliate you as you have humiliated me.I would not ask you questions that you asked me.I fought for the freedom of my people.I have merit and I am not guilty.No one can convict me.History will criticize you as my Communist enemy.You want to kill me, then kill me.Do not blindfold me.Down with the Communists.Long live the Republic of Viet Nam !"

Colonel CraigMandeville:

“They wanted the people to see that he was dead,” said Craig Mandeville, an American adviser to the South Vietnamese army who fought side by side with Can. “He was believed to be some sort of invincible guy. The North Vietnamese thought that, too, and I even thought that when I fought with him.”

“He said, ‘OK, the country’s fallen, but by God we’re still South Vietnamese and we’re free,’ ” Mandeville recalled. “So he went down to Chuong Tien province and rounded up all these soldiers down there to form a Free Vietnam.”

Col. Can didn’t live long after that, but the legacy of his struggle lives on.

Follow by Email

Counter

Core Creek Militia

==============================My sixth great grandfather, his wife, and five of his six children were killed in battle with the Tuscarora Indians at Core Creek, NC.

The Seven Blackbirds

==============================My third great grandfather was an Ensign in the Revolutionary War, and saved his unit's flag after being wounded at the Battle of Brandywine. He was also at Kingston (Kinston), Wilmington, Charleston, Two Sisters and Augusta. He was at the defeat at Brier Creek and also Bee Creek.

Requiem Aeternam -
Eternal Rest Grant unto Them
==============================
My second great grandfather was killed in action on May 3, 1863 at the Battle of Chancellorsville.
=============================
My great grandfather and great uncle knew all the men in the "Civil War Requiem" video as they were part of the 53rd NC which was the sole unit defending Fort Mahone. (Fort Mahone was named "Fort Damnation" by the Yankees) *Handpicked men of the 53rd (My great grandfather was one of these) made the final, night assault at Petersburg in an attempt to break Grant's line. This was against Fort Stedman which was a few miles to the slight northeast. They initially succeeded, but reinforcements drove them back. This video is made from photographs which were taken the day after the 53rd evacuated the lines the night before to begin the retreat to Appomattox. I have many more pictures taken by the same photographer, one of these shows a 14 year old boy and the other is the famous picture of the blond, handsome soldier with his musket.
===========================
*General Gordon promised the men a gold medal and 30 days leave if they accomplished their task and many years after the War my great grandfather wrote General Gordon, who was then governor of Georgia about this incident. They exchanged several letters which I have framed. See first link below.
===========================
*The Attack On Fort Stedman
============================
"His Colored Friends"
============================
Lee's Surrender
=============================
My Black NC Kinfolks
============================
Punished For Being Caught!

Great Grandfather Koonce

He was a drummer boy in the WBTS, survived the War only to die a few years later. He was caught in an ice storm on his way home, but instead of seeking shelter, continued on his horse until the end. His clothes had to be cut off and he died a few days later.